While I bet you are really good at reading greens, this mentality confuses me (along with @iacas's previous response). Most people's reviews about Aimpoint basically say that longer putts with multiple slopes is an educated guess. Most pins are located in a spot where the slope is pretty much the same within a certain radius of the hole (that radius is often 5' or more). If you have a putt within that radius, seeing another ball roll in it tells you everything you need to know. If you have a putt outside that radius, at least you know what the latter part of your putt will do.

I should start by saying that I'm no expert on aimpoint. I took the class 2 years ago and implement it as best I can. The methods have since changed. That being said, I think think the difference is the degree of accuracy. If you're watching someone else putt, I think there are a lot of variables.

1. You're likely not in the exact same spot. Being a couple feet left or right or closer or further changes the break.

2. Are you judging their putt based on what they told you they aimed at? Where they were actually aimed at? Where they started the ball?

3. Did they play too little break but hit it hard? Did they play a little too much break but hit it soft?

I am sure that you've seen a get a read from someone else's ball then miss his putt and wonder aloud why his didn't break. Its usually because they hit the ball at different speeds or one was on the fall line and the other was slightly to the side of it.

You only get one try to focus on all of these variables--no replays, no measuring. And they all affect the putt. The aimpoint chart will tell you to aim 3" off the left edge, exactly--not a cup, or half a cup, or about 3 balls.

If we control for all of those variables, maybe you would win the 5' putting contest. But if our balls aren't in the exact same spot and I'm a crappy putter who hits one hard enough to stop 3 feet past the hole and another that dies in the hole, the information you're getting becomes much less reliable.

That last revolution usually gives away the general break. Most useful when the ball stops close to the hole.

Actually it doesn't. Note that the below is from an experienced Aimpoint instructor:

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

The last inch of the putt is the worst part to look at. Heck, the last six inches. The ball is rolling so slowly that any imperfection can cause a large amount of "wobble." Balls can easily move "uphill" during the last six inches or so of the putt, because the "micro-slopes" of the green aren't overpowered by the ball's momentum. It's easily diverted.

If you had said the last six FEET of a putt, you'd be more correct, but judging anything by the last foot of a putt is likely not all that beneficial.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sopel10

I hate when I am far away for some reason, and my dad or someone I play with putts before I get to the green.

LOL, no kidding. Can't really complain much when you're playing in casual rounds, but I've had friends/partners (including my dad) do this when we're in a scramble together!! Seriously?? Come on!!

On a related note, I have heard Phil talk about really studying a missed putt because it helps him read his putt coming back. I've actually seen him sort of chase after a putt and really stare it down for this reason.

Be careful here. The golfer in me says "I know what he means" but the engineer in me says "that is dead wrong." Gravity doesn't vary with speed. Unless you hit the ball so hard that it comes off the ground, it's going to be affected by gravity at the exact same rate for the entirety of the putt.

Either I'm not understanding what you are saying or you are dead wrong. Gravity as a force may always be the same, but it is only one factor affecting the path of a putt. And it is the path of the putt we are interested in.

Think of a 30 foot putt with a strong L to R break. Hit the putt at a speed calculated to move the ball 3 feet and look at the break. Now hit the ball hard enough to reach the hole and observe the first 3 feet of the break. Which broke more to the right at the 3 foot point? Obviously the first putt.

It is similar to firing a cannon. Gravity is always the same, but if at a given angle you fire with a lower muzzle velocity the ball will fly shorter than if you fire with a higher muzzle velocity.

In both cases gravity is operating solely in the vertical dimension, whereas the golf ball or cannonball is moving in 3 dimensions, and the components of direction in the other 2 dimensions, as well as external factors like air (or grass) resistance, have a definite effect on the way gravity affects the ballpath.

Either I'm not understanding what you are saying or you are dead wrong. Gravity as a force may always be the same, but it is only one factor affecting the path of a putt. And it is the path of the putt we are interested in.

Think of a 30 foot putt with a strong L to R break. Hit the putt at a speed calculated to move the ball 3 feet and look at the break. Now hit the ball hard enough to reach the hole and observe the first 3 feet of the break. Which broke more to the right at the 3 foot point? Obviously the first putt.

It is similar to firing a cannon. Gravity is always the same, but if at a given angle you fire with a lower muzzle velocity the ball will fly shorter than if you fire with a higher muzzle velocity.

In both cases gravity is operating solely in the vertical dimension, whereas the golf ball or cannonball is moving in 3 dimensions, and the components of direction in the other 2 dimensions, as well as external factors like air (or grass) resistance, have a definite effect on the way gravity affects the ballpath.

No?

Hmmm ... I don't think I'm wrong, but I certainly don't think you're wrong either. I think I'm just being confusing. You're thinking in distance and I'm thinking in time. Certainly, per your example, the shorter putt broke more at the 3' mark than the longer putt. (This is probably all Boilermaker meant) My point is that at the 3 second mark, perhaps, the putt will have broken the same amount regardless of speed. Pretty sure that's right. (I remember the fun example in high school of a gun fired horizontally and a bullet dropped at the same time from the same height)

I'd seen some old stuff where instructors have said that people should aim at the apex of a putt, with the thought in mind that a putt will go straight for a period of time before it starts breaking. That was the red flag that popped up when I saw @boil3rmak3r 's comment, so I was just trying to address that.

As my 9 year old cousin might happily announce to me at this point: "epic fail."

Either I'm not understanding what you are saying or you are dead wrong. Gravity as a force may always be the same, but it is only one factor affecting the path of a putt. And it is the path of the putt we are interested in.

He's not wrong, but neither are you. Gravity is a constant (at least, within reason, given the variations in height of a putting green, the mass of the earth and the golf ball, etc.).

Gravity affects putts at the end of the putt "more" because you're both using different ways of measuring things.

The first five feet of a 30-foot putt are affected by gravity LESS than the last five feet because of the difference in TIME. The ball will go through the first five feet in a much shorter period of time.

I assume I am misunderstanding everybody but of a slower moving object can be pulled off of it's path by an outside force (in this case gravity) more than a faster moving object.

Nope. See the above. You're confusing time with speed.

The exact same putt on a slower green breaks less than on a faster green because it gets to the hole faster.

The exact same putt (except for the angle, but across the same uniform slope, etc.) from 45° uphill breaks more from 45° downhill because it's hit slower and thus takes longer to get to the hole.

Ball speed is simply a measure of distance over TIME. The time is the important factor. Acceleration is a function of time, too, and the force of gravity accelerates a mass over time. It's not about the speed of the ball. The bullet example is a good one here: fire a bullet and drop one at the same time, and they'll hit the ground at the same time. The bullet's horizontal "speed" doesn't make gravity have any less effect.

The exact same putt on a slower green breaks less than on a faster green because it gets to the hole faster.

The exact same putt (except for the angle, but across the same uniform slope, etc.) from 45° uphill breaks more from 45° downhill because it's hit slower and thus takes longer to get to the hole.

Ball speed is simply a measure of distance over TIME. The time is the important factor. Acceleration is a function of time, too, and the force of gravity accelerates a mass over time. It's not about the speed of the ball. The bullet example is a good one here: fire a bullet and drop one at the same time, and they'll hit the ground at the same time. The bullet's horizontal "speed" doesn't make gravity have any less effect.

It sure has an effect on the curve (or break) of that bullet. My 243 is on target at 25 yards and at 250 yards then it starts falling off of the chart as it loses speed. On the other hand my 30/30 starts dropping much sooner and much faster because it's a slower moving bullet. You can call it time (I won't argue with that) but the slower the bullet goes the faster it drops. Same as a putt.

He's not wrong, but neither are you. Gravity is a constant (at least, within reason, given the variations in height of a putting green, the mass of the earth and the golf ball, etc.).

Gravity affects putts at the end of the putt "more" because you're both using different ways of measuring things.

The first five feet of a 30-foot putt are affected by gravity LESS than the last five feet because of the difference in TIME. The ball will go through the first five feet in a much shorter period of time.

It's not really on topic, though.

Actually, it's very much on the topic that I intended... While my initial "last inch" comment was a bit extreme, I meant that the slower the putt gets, the more you'll be able to see the true fall line. On a perfect greeen (with no imperfections), the last inch would be extremely telling...

I'd seen some old stuff where instructors have said that people should aim at the apex of a putt, with the thought in mind that a putt will go straight for a period of time before it starts breaking. That was the red flag that popped up when I saw @boil3rmak3r 's comment, so I was just trying to address that.

I never suggested where to aim putts in any of my posts. I must have worded what I was trying to say very poorly...

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

I could probably beat you. Even if you got to watch my AimPoint putts (which I'd make a lot of) as your "one putt to watch."

Even though you are a pro, your putting isn't much (if any) better than mine. I learned that from LSW . I'll take your challenge anytime.

You can call it time (I won't argue with that) but the slower the bullet goes the faster it drops. Same as a putt.

No, it is not dropping any faster.

Acceleration (gravity) is distance/time^2.

Quote:

Originally Posted by boil3rmak3r

Actually, it's very much on the topic that I intended... While my initial "last inch" comment was a bit extreme, I meant that the slower the putt gets, the more you'll be able to see the true fall line.

I still disagree. A putt hit from 90 to the slope is not going to travel down the fall line. And even if it did it still places too much importance on the last little bit of the putt.

Can't be helpful to watch other players putt? Yes. Just don't put a lot of importance on the last few feet.

Acceleration (gravity) is distance/time^2.
I still disagree. A putt hit from 90 to the slope is not going to travel down the fall line. And even if it did it still places too much importance on the last little bit of the putt.

Can't be helpful to watch other players putt? Yes. Just don't put a lot of importance on the last few feet.

I give up but for the record when I say "faster" I mean more drop per distance traveled. I'm not talking about time.